Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 3, 2007, 00:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v3az1samx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <86tzrikz5x.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > >> * With -l, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is >> very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is >> very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit. > > Oh, but one does: an overzealous prune or rm -oopswrongoption in one > repo does not hurt the other.
That's not "back-up" benefit I was thinking about. It is more about protecting your data from hardware failure. You physically have bits in two places, preferrably on separate disk drives.
And that is what you do not get from hardlinked clone.